WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. John Kerry, whose baffling explanation of votes on Iraq war funding hurt his 2004 White House bid, said on Tuesday he would back President Bush's new $81.9 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I think we're in a very different situation," Kerry told reporters. "I'm going to vote for this ... I think this money is important to our being successful and to the completion of the process."

The Massachusetts senator, who failed in his bid to unseat Bush last November in an election focused on national security, defended his decision to not back the president's previous request to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Mine was the right vote at the time and I wouldn't change it if we went back to that point in time because it was the right vote," Kerry said. "We didn't have a plan and they didn't spend the money correctly."

In October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an unsuccessful alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of Bush's tax cuts.

In March last year as the presidential campaign heated up, Kerry provided his Republican opponents with political ammunition when he sought to explain the move by saying: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

"Should we have done a better job, could I have done a better job personally in fighting back on defining that?" Kerry asked. "The answer is yeah."

Kerry said the United States would have made better progress on Iraq, where an insurgency continues to rage almost two years after the March 2003 invasion, if he had been elected. He asserted the Bush administration was only now "trying some of the things" he proposed such as focusing on training Iraqi forces and getting other countries involved.

Kerry's statement--- "I support the President's funding request, that is before a while back when I do not support the effort to remove funding and support our troops, but I do not support the effort to raise funding to not support our troops, while before that, I do support funding that was not supported by my previous vote to stop and start funding last week, which has no bearing on my not funding the support that was funded by the Senate which did change my support on the issue of taking funds away from the military to give to the non-supported funds which I voted for yesterday, but now changed back to the original funding which I voted for along with the effort to change funding and re-support the vote to change the Senate vote which I do support...now I can clarify that by saying I do not support the funding which I earlier voted against, er for, then changed back on Wednesday, but....."

I think this money is important to our being successful and to the completion of the process."

Huh? You mean as opposed to the previous spending bill that did NOT HELP to COMPLETE the PROCESS?

How can any reporter STOP from LAUGHING out loud at that statement while asking him HOW in Allah's name could NO MONEY, NO FOOD, NO AMMO, or NO EQUIPMENT have helped our TROOPS to succeed in bringing about the recent and successful elections in IRAQ?

25
posted on 02/15/2005 3:54:30 PM PST
by PISANO
(We will not tire......We will not falter.......We will NOT FAIL!!! .........GW Bush [Oct 2001])

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.